Opponents of HJR-3 take part in a candlelight vigil hosted by Freedom Indiana on Jan. 12 at North United Methodist Church in Indianapolis. / Rob Goebel/The Star

Written by

Russ Pulliam

Gay marriage debate organizer John Krull wanted something more than a spirited argument for Franklin College students.

The journalism instructor was promoting civility, even on one of the most divisive social and political issues that Indiana and the nation face.

So, after the Monday night debate on the Franklin campus, Krull took the opponents — Curt Smith of the Indiana Family Institute and Jane Henegar of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union — to dinner.

During the debate, Henegar contended that the marriage amendment would write discrimination into the state constitution and cause legal confusion. “We should not be putting limitations on rights in our constitution,” she said. “We don’t put the rights of our neighbors up for a show of hands.”

Smith argued that the amendment reaffirms marriage between one man and woman as the best family model, especially for bringing up children. “We see marriage as being between a man and a woman for the benefit of children,” he said. “Children do best when they are raised by their mother and father. Family instability is generally harmful to children.”

The debate also ranged over questions of who should decide the matter -- the voters or the courts? Federal or state government?

If any two people can get married, can three or four? Does polygamy follow next? Who sets any limits on a definition of marriage?

Henegar tackled the confusion of the legal side of the amendment and the additional proposed legislation that tries to explain the amendment. “Our state constitution is miraculous,” she said. “We shouldn’t stain it by trying to settle this issue with murky language.”

Despite their differences, Henegar and Smith looked for common ground and ways to compliment each other, with an assist from moderator Randy Shepard, the former Indiana chief justice.

Krull is pursuing an American tradition that gets fewer headlines than the fireworks that come with big social issue debates. When ideological opponents do the hard work of personal friendship, they usually don’t make news. They don’t walk out on each other and halt legislative sessions. They don’t call each other names. They don’t lead a nation or state to the brink of bankruptcy over tactical disputes. They tend to head off the conflicts that create the dramatic news stories. But they can learn the names of one another’s children or play basketball together or go into a triathlon as teammates.

They make not make news with these efforts, but they do resolve many personality problems behind the scenes.

The Franklin College audience was polite, maybe out of respect for a former chief justice who laid down some guidelines at the start. But the chief justice attracted a long and sustained applause at the end when he declared: “Curt Smith and Jane Henegar have given us a superb lesson in public dialogue.”